I believe medic put it in a nice way that frankly makes a lot more sense than "BOP is on whoever is making a positive statement, theists are claiming god exists, they get the BOP". Which is essentially if I say x exists, I have the BOP to prove that x actually does exist. Same with saying that x is better than y or that x is true. All of those necessitate a BOP, as they are all positive statements. All we have to do is simply replace the x's and y's and we get things like "Atheism is preferable to theism" and "Atheism is true". They're still the same x-y positive statements, so they all mandate a burden of proof to them. Of course, this doesn't mean theists DON'T hold a burden of proof, as they too are still making a positive statement, but it would be illogical and just flat out wrong to say that atheists don't, regardless of how you define atheism.

Anyway, since the second-most common argument for atheists, let's go to the first: "Atheism is the lack of belief in a God! Lack of belief doesn't necessitate a BOP as there's no stance actually being taken!". Bull. Let's look at how we debate.

Whenever I am going to argue for x, I have to give reasons for x. If I am going to have effective reasons for x, then these reasons need truth claims to be considered truth. In order for a truth claim to be made, you must be arguing for a specific stance. And if you are arguing for a specific stance, you are arguing a position. For example, if I were going to argue for Cheeseburgers, I would have to give reasons for cheeseburgers (Cheeseburgers are delicious!). If that reason is to be effective, then they need truth claims (Cheeseburgers taste good and are filling, thus is delicious.). In order for those to actually be truth claims, I must actually be taking a stance (That cheeseburgers are delicious). Thus, if I am arguing for a stance, then my argument has a position (for cheeseburgers).

To relate this to the current thread, let's say I'm arguing for atheism. To argue for atheism, I need to have reasons for atheism (PoE, lack of proof, paradox of the stone, contradictions, etc. Whatever you fancy). To have those reasons be legitimate reasons (or at least as legitimate as atheists sell them), they need truth claims to them (warrants and proof and all that good junk that we debaters know and love). To have actual truth claims, you need to be taking a stance on something (that atheism is sound/true/etc.). And if I take a stance on something, then I have a position for something.

So much for the whole "Atheists lack a belief and position, so we aren't really arguing for anything. You get the BOP! MWUAHAHAHA!"

And for those of you who are really hardcore "IF YOU MAKE A POSITIVE STATEMENT, THE POSITIVE SIDE HAS THE BOP!". Fair enough. Here's a test. Resolved: Atheism is sound. Pro is arguing for atheism, and con is arguing against atheism. Who gets the BOP? The guy making a positive statement? Correct. BUT WAIT! That's the guy arguing for atheism!!! How could he have the BOP!?

Shwoops...

Anyway, I acknowledge that tulle made another thread essentially addressing the same thing. I acknowledge that the vast majority of DDO vehemently disagrees with my position. And that's okay. Because they all use the same two flawed arguments, and just run and hide behind them no matter how many times they get exposed because they rely on their buddies to pull them out of a jam and vote 5, 6, 7 points for them to make sure they win by a landslide.

So go ahead. Argue against me! Make AAAAALLLLLL the truth claims against my position you want. Prove to me why atheists don't have the BOP! But understand this: by arguing that Atheists don't have a BOP, you are taking a position and stating/defending a belief. So go ahead! Make your move. As Dirty Harry stated so grandly, "You feelin' lucky, punk?"

Also, just as a fun little note, do you really know what anyone with more than two brain cells calls "weak atheism"? Welcome to the world of agnosticism! Myself and my fellow agnostic brothers welcome you. If you feel like being properly labeled an atheist, please explain why no god could possibly exist, rather than just hid behind you "lacking a belief" that you clearly don't lack.

At 9/12/2012 11:41:01 PM, Zaradi wrote:I believe medic put it in a nice way that frankly makes a lot more sense than "BOP is on whoever is making a positive statement, theists are claiming god exists, they get the BOP". Which is essentially if I say x exists, I have the BOP to prove that x actually does exist. Same with saying that x is better than y or that x is true. All of those necessitate a BOP, as they are all positive statements. All we have to do is simply replace the x's and y's and we get things like "Atheism is preferable to theism" and "Atheism is true". They're still the same x-y positive statements, so they all mandate a burden of proof to them. Of course, this doesn't mean theists DON'T hold a burden of proof, as they too are still making a positive statement, but it would be illogical and just flat out wrong to say that atheists don't, regardless of how you define atheism.

Anyway, since the second-most common argument for atheists, let's go to the first: "Atheism is the lack of belief in a God! Lack of belief doesn't necessitate a BOP as there's no stance actually being taken!". Bull. Let's look at how we debate.

Whenever I am going to argue for x, I have to give reasons for x. If I am going to have effective reasons for x, then these reasons need truth claims to be considered truth. In order for a truth claim to be made, you must be arguing for a specific stance. And if you are arguing for a specific stance, you are arguing a position. For example, if I were going to argue for Cheeseburgers, I would have to give reasons for cheeseburgers (Cheeseburgers are delicious!). If that reason is to be effective, then they need truth claims (Cheeseburgers taste good and are filling, thus is delicious.). In order for those to actually be truth claims, I must actually be taking a stance (That cheeseburgers are delicious). Thus, if I am arguing for a stance, then my argument has a position (for cheeseburgers).

To relate this to the current thread, let's say I'm arguing for atheism. To argue for atheism, I need to have reasons for atheism (PoE, lack of proof, paradox of the stone, contradictions, etc. Whatever you fancy). To have those reasons be legitimate reasons (or at least as legitimate as atheists sell them), they need truth claims to them (warrants and proof and all that good junk that we debaters know and love). To have actual truth claims, you need to be taking a stance on something (that atheism is sound/true/etc.). And if I take a stance on something, then I have a position for something.

So much for the whole "Atheists lack a belief and position, so we aren't really arguing for anything. You get the BOP! MWUAHAHAHA!"

And for those of you who are really hardcore "IF YOU MAKE A POSITIVE STATEMENT, THE POSITIVE SIDE HAS THE BOP!". Fair enough. Here's a test. Resolved: Atheism is sound. Pro is arguing for atheism, and con is arguing against atheism. Who gets the BOP? The guy making a positive statement? Correct. BUT WAIT! That's the guy arguing for atheism!!! How could he have the BOP!?

Shwoops...

Anyway, I acknowledge that tulle made another thread essentially addressing the same thing. I acknowledge that the vast majority of DDO vehemently disagrees with my position. And that's okay. Because they all use the same two flawed arguments, and just run and hide behind them no matter how many times they get exposed because they rely on their buddies to pull them out of a jam and vote 5, 6, 7 points for them to make sure they win by a landslide.

So go ahead. Argue against me! Make AAAAALLLLLL the truth claims against my position you want. Prove to me why atheists don't have the BOP! But understand this: by arguing that Atheists don't have a BOP, you are taking a position and stating/defending a belief. So go ahead! Make your move. As Dirty Harry stated so grandly, "You feelin' lucky, punk?"

Simple answer.....yes, the burden is always on the bringer of the affirmative.

Pointless thread is pointless. Zaradi's confusion stems from his lack of understanding of what 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' mean. Atheism, in and of itself, cannot possibly have any burden of proof. To argue otherwise is idiotic. Do not confuse this with the assertion that no atheist has a burden of proof. And agnosticism answers an entirely different question. For instance, one can be an agnostic theist or, like myself, an agnostic de facto positive atheist.

Zaradi, you should make sure you understand about what you're arguing before creating a thread. You've made more than enough idiotic arguments in the past; you need not make any more.

Zaradi, atheism is merely the lack of the belief that at least one god exists. Atheism is the lack of one particular positive claim. Even if every atheist who's ever lived, is alive now or will ever live has made, is making or will make positive claims, atheism has no burden of proof in and of itself. To argue otherwise is idiotic.

At 9/13/2012 9:43:18 AM, Manbearpanda wrote:Zaradi, atheism is merely the lack of the belief that at least one god exists. Atheism is the lack of one particular positive claim. Even if every atheist who's ever lived, is alive now or will ever live has made, is making or will make positive claims, atheism has no burden of proof in and of itself. To argue otherwise is idiotic.

"is making or will make positive claims"Hey, you got alot of explaining to do.

'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13

At 9/13/2012 9:43:18 AM, Manbearpanda wrote:Zaradi, atheism is merely the lack of the belief that at least one god exists. Atheism is the lack of one particular positive claim. Even if every atheist who's ever lived, is alive now or will ever live has made, is making or will make positive claims, atheism has no burden of proof in and of itself. To argue otherwise is idiotic.

"is making or will make positive claims"Hey, you got alot of explaining to do. [sic]

I make plenty of positive claims. No unreasonable ones, though. Anyway, I'm not a negative atheist, so that's irrelevant. Zaradi fails to understand that negative atheists are not necessarily defending their position, or lack thereof, and asserting that it's rational.

All babies are born atheistic. Do you think that they are making positive claims as soon as they are born? If not, you concede and I'm right.

At 9/13/2012 9:43:18 AM, Manbearpanda wrote:Zaradi, atheism is merely the lack of the belief that at least one god exists.

False. That us WEAK ATHEISM. Do you know what normal people really call weak atheism? Agnosticism. OOOOOOOOOOOSNAP

Atheism is the lack of one particular positive claim.

1. Yet every argument for atheism makes positive claims. You're making a positive truth claim just saying that atheism doesn't make truth claims.2. If Atheism does not make thee positive truth claims like you are saying they do, then there is no reason to believe they are actually right, making us default to theism.

Even if every atheist who's ever lived, is alive now or will ever live has made, is making or will make positive claims, atheism has no burden of proof in and of itself. To argue otherwise is idiotic.

Good to know you won't even touch my post or my logic and just yell at my from a distance "Hey! You're wrong by the way!"

At 9/13/2012 9:43:18 AM, Manbearpanda wrote:Zaradi, atheism is merely the lack of the belief that at least one god exists. Atheism is the lack of one particular positive claim. Even if every atheist who's ever lived, is alive now or will ever live has made, is making or will make positive claims, atheism has no burden of proof in and of itself. To argue otherwise is idiotic.

"is making or will make positive claims"Hey, you got alot of explaining to do. [sic]

I make plenty of positive claims.

And, as all atheists keep spouting, positive claims require a burden of proof. You're asserting that atheism is free from a burden of proof is a positive statement, yet you do nothing to back it up.

No unreasonable ones, though. Anyway, I'm not a negative atheist, so that's irrelevant. Zaradi fails to understand that negative atheists are not necessarily defending their position, or lack thereof, and asserting that it's rational.

So you just conceded a) atheists don't defend atheism, and b) atheists do not assert atheism rationally. So why believe atheism? And don't say "I don't have to prove it, I don't have a BOP." as that only proves my point.

All babies are born atheistic. Do you think that they are making positive claims as soon as they are born? If not, you concede and I'm right.

How on earth do babies not making positive truth claims the second they are born concede that atheism does not have to make proof? Furthermore, infants are born IGNORANT. There's a difference between atheism and ignorance, although apparently not that much if they just keep asserting they don't have to prove anything.

Atheism is, by definition, the lack of the theory or belief that at least one god exists. If you disagree, check The OED and realise you're wrong. Thus, people who make no claims whatsoever and have no beliefs are, by definition, atheists.

Zaradi, thank you for proving that you do not understand what atheism is. I can't say I'm surprised. Atheism is simply the lack of one particular belief or theory. Negative atheism is the combination of said lack and the lack of the belief to the contrary. Do you understand now?

Do you know what 'normal people' say when they mean 'than'? 'Then'. Common mistakes are mistakes nonetheless. I am an agnostic; I am by no means a negative atheist. I'm as close as one can possibly rationally come to a 'gnostic' atheist.

As for your opening post, I read it and was underwhelmed. You're making arguments that have been debunked over and over again. Unless you're somehow going to show that one has a burden of proof even when making no claims whatsoever, you're fighting a losing battle.

I'm asserting that one has no burden of proof when making no positive claims. I don't have to prove this, since it's obviously true and anyone with whom it is worth arguing can see this.

TheAsylum, do you honestly think that babies are born already believing that at least one god exists? If not, then you agree with my claim and there's no need for me to prove it to you. If so, then you're an idiot and it's not worth reasoning with you. Thus, I don't have to prove such an obviously correct statement's validity.

At 9/13/2012 10:33:37 AM, Manbearpanda wrote:Atheism is, by definition, the lack of the theory or belief that at least one god exists. If you disagree, check The OED and realise you're wrong. Thus, people who make no claims whatsoever and have no beliefs are, by definition, atheists.:

You just said, you have beliefs that atleast one God exist. Then you say, you do not have beliefs. Which is it? If you have no beliefs, then dont you think religion and theory of God is not a place you should be in discussion at? Isn't out of your league? Seeming that you have no belief or theory in the matter?

TheAsylum, do you honestly think that babies are born already believing that at least one god exists? If not, then you agree with my claim and there's no need for me to prove it to you. If so, then you're an idiot and it's not worth reasoning with you. Thus, I don't have to prove such an obviously correct statement's validity.:

You must always prove the positive statement. This is what theist deal with daily. We tell you God exist but we do not have the power to make God appear on a whime. So, we are left hanging when athiest are looking. But, when a atheist makes the same claim and left hanging on thier claims, theist are idiots. Hmmm....biased much? Just say you can not prove it but that is what you believe. Plus, Zaradi is righ, there i difference between ignorance from not knowing and being able to comprehind.

TheAsylum, which mental disability or disabilities do you have? I'd like to know, as it will inform the way in which I explain things to you. You clearly have at least one very severe disability, or else you would not be making such ridiculous claims.

When did I say that I believed in a god? I did not. I said that I was an agnostic de facto positive atheist. This has not changed.

As for your lack of understanding of how beliefs work, would I have to prove to you that 1=1? It makes no sense to ask someone to prove everything from first principles. Some things are so abundantly clear that it is highly illogical to ask for proof of them.

At 9/13/2012 10:49:31 AM, Manbearpanda wrote:TheAsylum, which mental disability or disabilities do you have? I'd like to know, as it will inform the way in which I explain things to you. You clearly have at least one very severe disability, or else you would not be making such ridiculous claims.:

Yes, attack.

When did I say that I believed in a god? I did not. I said that I was an agnostic de facto positive atheist. This has not changed.:

I meant you didn't believe in God. Which still is a belief and claim.

As for your lack of understanding of how beliefs work, would I have to prove to you that 1=1? It makes no sense to ask someone to prove everything from first principles. Some things are so abundantly clear that it is highly illogical to ask for proof of them.:

If it so clear then it should quite easy to prove them. Makes sense right? Yes.

TheAsylum, that wasn't an attack. From which disabilities do you suffer?

You've clearly never dealt with mathematical proofs; often, the simplest concepts are the hardest to prove, but they needn't be proven rigorously in every argument. If you don't possess the common sense necessary to understand the most basic of my arguments, then you are almost certainly not intelligent enough to contribute anything worthwhile, so I have no reason to explain this to you.

I believe that you are confusing completely no BOP and no BOP to prove the existence of God. No atheist that I have ever meant has made absolutely no assertions about anything. When rebutting evidence from theists, atheists make assertions about the theists' arguments, but not necessarily about God. Atheists make assertions such as "The POE is flawed because of X and Y" and then, they have the burden of proof. However, atheists do not make positive or negative assertions about God (ex. God definitely does not exist).

So atheists have a BOP when rebutting the theists' arguments but not when making claims about God- because they don't.

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

At 9/13/2012 11:01:39 AM, Manbearpanda wrote:TheAsylum, that wasn't an attack. From which disabilities do you suffer?

You've clearly never dealt with mathematical proofs; often, the simplest concepts are the hardest to prove, but they needn't be proven rigorously in every argument. If you don't possess the common sense necessary to understand the most basic of my arguments, then you are almost certainly not intelligent enough to contribute anything worthwhile, so I have no reason to explain this to you.

You can not explain. That is the truth. So, please continue to attack. That is all you are good for. You have done nothing but that.

At 9/13/2012 11:25:13 AM, Lordknukle wrote:I believe that you are confusing completely no BOP and no BOP to prove the existence of God. No atheist that I have ever meant has made absolutely no assertions about anything. When rebutting evidence from theists, atheists make assertions about the theists' arguments, but not necessarily about God. Atheists make assertions such as "The POE is flawed because of X and Y" and then, they have the burden of proof. However, atheists do not make positive or negative assertions about God (ex. God definitely does not exist).:

You can place definitely in there to make it bolder. But, just saying 'does not' is bold enough. Then we go to the belief, if you belief that God does not exist then you have beliefs. That in fact is a set of beliefs. Those set of beliefs are in opposite of theist. So, either you have beliefs, which are, "God may not exist", or, you make claims, "God does not exist".

So atheists have a BOP when rebutting the theists' arguments but not when making claims about God- because they don't.:

Yes, to make a claim, you must show why and then, that why, is a set of beliefs.